Harry might be liable for £48m Costs

[Viviennemary]

I just read Harry might be liable for £48m costs. No wonder he wanted to see Charles. Trouble is he's won most of his court cases up till now and has made a tidy sum out of them. He must be insured against this surely. And the others will be liable too. But I don't suppose any of them has £48m to spare.

So despite advising Harry not to keep abusing the courts , you think he should just pay off his son’s court bills (and obviously all the other claimants because that amount is shared between them all!) !
odd.

I would laugh my socks off if this happened! Harry thinks the Courts are his personal vigilante force to smite anyone who disagrees with him.
The time he has wasted on the other matter, about his ‘security’ because he couldn’t accept the word ‘no’.
Sadly, I doubt it will be £48m.

Agreed, total wanker. Either begging a living by exploiting his dead mother, or snivelling round his father for cash. Waste of space.

I don't think anything personally but families are complicated beasts and who knows, despite all the crap that's happened, C3 might bail out his brat of a son.

I've no idea of C3s personal financial situation but undoubtedly Harry does and wouldn't be backwards about asking for a handout.

The claimants lawyers were on a no win no fee basis. It's paying the defendants cost as a result of losing that it what the fuss is about. There were hundreds of thousands of documens to be trawled through so costs will have grown in proportion to time spent defending the claims t. Claimants will have been warned about this risk, told about their insured sum, but must have too greedy and didn't attempt to settle before the trial. It's the trial that dramatically increases the costs

So you think that parents should bail out their adult kids everytime they get into debt of their own causing? Nah hes well too old to be bailed and has had enough money. Besides if a "child" (grown adult) slags you off, makes millions on a book/tv show etc slagging you off, why would you even think about paying his debts 🤷 Im damn sure I wouldn't.

I didn't say I would personally, but families can be dysfunctional and if you believe anything you read the RF is up there with the best of them.

Who knows.

Well I know I wouldn't!! I've helped my kids in the past. But when I decided enough was enough they suddenly didnt like it much. Oh and actually suggesting they pay a loan back was met with absolute shock o their part. My reply was well if you don't pay me back I won't have any to lend you next time 🤷 So now I'm a bad parent!! Well guess what kids I'm spending my hard earned (50 years working 47 of that full time) money enjoying what time I have left. As for KC (not the sunshine band one 😉) think he should just tell H and his wife to do one 😉

No way should KC bail him out. That would be public money, apart from anything else.

When will 41-year-old toddler Harry learn consequences? This could be his opportunity,

And KC has his non-prodigal son, William, to consider.

Actually, if KC were to his hand in his pocket at all (which I hope he won't for Harry) he'd be better helping Doreen Lawrence out!

But what's that got to do with the King having to pay Harry's costs when he was discouraged from pursuing this case to begin with?

It's completely irrelevant how dysfunctional you might surmise the RF are.

Charles might want to, but KC3 has to think about the ramifications for him, as head of the courts, if he funds a vexatious litigant who goes on tomattack the judhge if it doesn't go his way.

And Charles-the-dad might be familiar with the rock-bottom thing. I'm sure W will have mentioned it to him in this context.

Andrew had never been found guilty of anything.

So you just casually pay £12 million to someone who apparently you have never met (now disproven) who has apparently made up a fairytale? I don’t think so! Given the RF’s powerful position and influence, there would have had to have been some serious proven basis in fact for them to have paid over one million, never mind twelve!

It doesn’t surprise me though that the attempts at excusing and minimising have already begun.

In the UK, "innocent until proven guilty" is known as the presumption of innocence. Protected under <a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&rct=j&url=www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/civil-rights/human-rights/what-rights-are-protected-under-the-human-rights-act/your-right-to-a-fair-trial/&ved=2ahUKEwij09vsk4SWAxUUQUEAHYRVLJ8Qy_kOegoIAggACAAICBAC&opi=89978449&cd&psig=AOvVaw22ZSn4tkKV4UraWUqyFn-v&ust=1785836050729000" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Also don’t know what the cost of the insurance premium was - to insure something to the tune or £16m would have been substantial.

Yes his home has doubled in value in the 5 years he has owned it from $14m to almost $30m - so plenty of equity to borrow against or tap into if sold. Their property deal might have been the most lucrative of all over the last 5 years.

JGIAFOC · 30/07/2026 02:08
The family found the money to pay off a woman Andrew raped so they shouldn’t have a problem paying for this of needed.

I think that was a decision of the late Queen's, so not relevant to KC. I don't think there's any love lost between KC and Andrew.

What AMW did isn't relevant to this case at all. The only common factor is that both leading characters are in the RF, but otherwise it's like comparing apples with oranges.

King Charles, then Prince Charles did give a bridging loan to Andrew to cover the shortfall until the ski chalet sold. He very much was involved in financing this payoff, he knew what it was for. He helped his brother make it all go away, it is very important we don’t just blame this on the elderly late Queen.

Where is your evidence for this?

I strongly suspect the family and/or institution did facilitate this financial arrangement - but I would like to see the evidence so that I can back up my suspicions.

Thank you - I stand corrected.

Actually, you make a good point. We might all agree that it wasn't the best decision to help Andrew in that way, but you're right - the Queen was at that point a very old lady.

I know that my (previously sensible) mum, when she got towards 90, started to make some very worrying decisions about money and other things. I'm sure panic sets in and to some extent you must lose your judgement. They can also be vulnerable to persuasive and flattering people who don't have their best interests at heart - my mum certainly was.

Not absolving her, but I think very old people sometimes get scared and anxious easily and make bad judgements.

Rogue Princes are pricey.